<nettime> Re: Hegelian Dialectics 101

[nettime <nettime-l@bbs.thing.net>]

Alain Kessi <kessi@bitex.com>
         Re: <nettime> Hegelian Dialectics 101
Newmedia@aol.com
         Re: <nettime> Hegelian Dialectics 101

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 14:31:53 +0200
From: Alain Kessi <kessi@bitex.com>
Subject: Re: <nettime> Hegelian Dialectics 101

> W.T.O. gets slammed by PROTESTORS to give us THE-NEW-WTO/PROTESTORS
> 
> (I.E. the protestors are incorporated in the WTO-process and they gain
> substantial globalization power, exactly as publicly hoped for by the
> U.S.A. and as stated by Clinton.)

Doesn't seem to me like there's very much of a WTO left for
protesters to be incorporated in, judging from the latest reports,
plus that Stratfor analysis and others pointing out the internal
contradictions (which of course would not have developed if there
was no struggle) among the WTO governments. Struggles + internal
contradictions (contradictory interests within the elites) = crisis
of the power system. As for the dialectics involved, it will not be
deterministic in the Stahlmannian sense, but will involve further
attempts by elites at repressing struggles and legitimizing power
structures, and further struggles aiming at destabilizing and
delegitimizing those power structures and developing strategies
against being incorporated and used.

And it seems to me that Stahlmannian dialectics are a bit crude in
their resolution of differences between various types of activists.
As if protesters, for Stahlmann, meant AFL-CIO. Good try. Try better
next time (and give more context, and have a closer look, and don't
play official history's role of negating struggles).

In the meantime, others will not wait till God or historical
determinism rids them of power systems, and bemoan the impossibility
of struggling.

Alain

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: Newmedia@aol.com
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 11:01:43 EST
Subject: Re: <nettime> Hegelian Dialectics 101

Alain:

Struggle?  Ha!  You call this a "struggle"?  Shame on you!  Everyone who ever 
struggled is turning in their graves.  Shame.

When the "anarchists" invite the national news media into their "squat" to 
show them the nice "house-rules" posted on the wall?  You mean that 
"struggle"?  When the "anarchists" proclaim on national television that they 
never smash windows or spray-paint circle-A's?  When the national delegations 
and the President of the United Snakes all praise the demostrators and demand 
that the WTO open its doors to them.  When the NYTimes and the mass media 
proclaim over and over that the demonstrators are more for "globalization" 
than the delegates.  That "struggle"?  Ha!

Did you read my "How Could This Happen?" note to nettime?  

Didn't see it?  Well, somehow, by mistake, no doubt, it got buried in the 
gush of reports from the "battle" in Seattle.  I'll copy it for you below.  
You're welcome. <g>

The note makes a very simple point.  Those who were "struggling" in the 
streets of Seattle already *own* the WTO and the "globalization" process.  
Always have.  And, since this "globalization" idea was first put forward as 
"revolution" by H.G. Wells, it has been intimately involved with 
multi-nationals.  He called it the "Open Conspiracy", in case you hadn't 
heard.

If someone was "struggling" on the streets of Seattle and they don't know why 
or how they got there or what is going to happen next, then they probably 
don't want to know . . . or, they don't read nettime. <g>

You can't tell the playa's without a scorecard!,

Mark Stahlman

Subj:   How Could This Happen?
Date:   11/29/99 1:08:37 PM Eastern Standard Time
From:   Newmedia
To: nettime-l@bbs.thing.net
CC: nlc@bbs.thing.net

Comrades:

Today's NYTimes tells us that the "Turning Point Project" (a well-funded 
coalition "fighting" the WTO) has spent over $100,000 taking out full-page 
ads to rally support.  In the same paper, today's full-page TPP ad, "This 
Advertisement is #3 in  Series on Economic Globalization" begins with the 
following:

"INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT

"The World Trade Organization (WTO) is emerging as the world's first global 
government.  But it was elected by no-one, it operates in secrecy, and its 
mandate is this: To undermine the constitutional rights of sovereign nations. 
 HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN? [emphasis added]  What can we do?"

But, in the entire page of text (and in the pages of all the previous ads 
they have run) there is not one word about *why* any of this came about.  It 
is not possible to figure out *what* to do without figuring out *why* the 
situation developed in the first place.  Is it?

So, why doesn't the Turning Point Project (or anyone else, as far as can be 
told, who is marching in Seattle) dare to even try to address the obvious 
question of *why*?

Could it be that they -- themselves -- are responsible?

I return your attention to H.G. Wells' 1928 "The Open Conspiracy" (the 
underlying topic of my first encounter with the nettime crowd in Budapest in 
1996.)  

The culmination of 20+ years of  agitating for a "World State" (beginning 
with Wells' 1902 co-optation along with Bertrand Russell into the 
"Co-Effiecients Group"), this manifesto is simply the blueprint for the WTO.  
Wells, the revolutionary socialist, was the god-father of the WTO.

As detailed in his companion 1929 pamphlet "Imperialism and the Open 
Conspiracy", Wells' 1926 novel "The World of William Clissold" was a 
fictional account of the means by which multi-national corporations would 
become that very "World State", which we witness today.  Clissold was a 
fictionalized Sir Alfred Mond, the head of perhaps the world's first true 
multi-national, Imperial Chemical Inc. (ICI), and Mond was slated to become a 
leading "New Samurai" -- the name Wells gave to those who would run the world 
in his 1905 novel, "A Modern Utopia."

(Footnote:  Aldous Huxley's 1932 "Brave New World" is written as a counter to 
"The Open Conspiracy."  With "Mustafa Mond" serving as the "World Controller" 
figure, introduced in chapter 3.  Wells' 1933 "The Shape of Things to Come" 
is, in turn, the counter to Huxley and also the blueprint for ICANN -- via 
Wells' proteges Szillard/Dyson and Pugwash.  The real-life Sir Alfred Mond 
actually funded a short-lived magazine in 1929, "The Realist", with both 
Huxley and Wells on its editorial board, where many of these rival 
post-imperial utopian strategies were hashed out.)

And, what were the three organizing principles of the "open conspiracy"?  The 
principles by which you would know the "open conspiracy" -- even if the 
participants didn't know what they were doing.  They were:  No war, no 
nations and no growth.

Thus, 70+ years of "internationalist", "anti-war", "anti-nuclear" and 
"zero-growth" organizing -- often lead by the very same folks who comprise 
the Turning Point Project and others in Seattle -- have been merely 
components of Wells' "open conspiracy."  All of which leads directly to the 
WTO.  

Could it be that the "demonstrators" aren't really opposed to Wells' "World 
State" and are really concerned that *they* seem to have no power in its 
"senate"?  Could they, in fact, wish to become a component of the "New 
Samurai"?

Indeed, how could this happen?

Don't forget Kosovo.

This massive and catastrophic attack on national sovereignty was justified 
entirely on the basis of "human rights."  Who gave us the modern notion of 
"human rights"?

Yes, H.G. Wells.  As an integral structural component of the "open 
conspiracy."

In the appendix to Wells' last re-statement of the "open conspiracy" themes, 
his 1942 "Phoenix: A Summary of the Inescapible Conditions of World 
Reorganization", Wells introduces his 1940 "Sankay Declaration of the Rights 
of Man" as follows:

"The Rights of the World Citizen.  The Soviet Constitution of 1936 will be 
found at the end of the first volume of Beatrice and Sidney Webb's [these are 
the two who co-opted Wells into the "Co-Efficients"] "Soviet Communism, a New 
Civilization."  It is a book every intelligent Revolutionary should have 
available."

Yes, as stated by Wells, and as incorporated from Wells into the UN's 
"Declaration" and the European Union's "Declaration", "human-rights" are 
"communist" and "revolutionary", indeed.  Comrades.

Cyber-comrades.

Which is exactly why multi-national corporations, those behind the WTO, are 
aggressively gearing to use "human-rights" to shield themselves from national 
sovereignty.  What?

Yes, a corporation is -- legally -- an "individual."  As an "individual", 
corporations are to be afforded "human-rights."  Thus, Britain, for example, 
lacking a Bill of Rights, is expecting to have its *legal* recourse against 
the actions of corporations very sharply curtailed when the European 
"Declaration" takes full *legal* force.

Thus, "human-rights", designed by H.G. Wells to protect the "rights" of 
multi-national corporations, in order to further the progress of the "open 
conspiracy" towards a "World State", is directly behind the growth of the WTO.

(Please re-post this note as widely as you see fit.  Those who fear 
understanding their own history are doomed to repeat 
it.)

INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT

How could it happen?

We have met the enemy . . . and it is (us),

Mark Stahlman


#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net